Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.
Read more

<quoted text>Science corrected itself all through history, even under the Church. It is a process, not a religion. But you are trying to turn it into a religion.Well, modern science did get a good kickstart under the Church.The Church filled the void left by the collapse of the Roman Empire. The void included libraries and the exchange of information. The Church brought what survived back. They provided the education and facilities.You listen to too many soundbites.One more time.It was Faraday and Maxwell, two devout theists, that are the absolute underpinnings of modern science. They dealt with this invisible force and turned it into the tool used since by modern physics and science.Them directly.

Science has nothing to do with religion. Scientists are not out to prove whether your god or any other god exists or not. As scientists, they don't care.

How many scientists are christian? Does it matter? No.

How many scientists believe in a young Earth? Damn few! But does it matter? Not unless they are trying to bring that stupidity into real science! Or worse, into public classrooms.

How many scientists believe in Adam and Eve? Damn few! But does it matter? Not unless they are trying to bring that stupidity into real science! Or worse, into public classrooms.

If there was any credible evidence of Adam and Eve popping onto the planet, the first fully grown humans to ever exist, scientists would be all over that evidence trying to prove it wrong. Just like they do for every other bit of credible evidence.

<quoted text>And the idiot hits keep on rolling! The enviroment would have to had been able to support life, wylie coyote, like today. And it is you SUPER GENIUSES who are stuck in the 1700's thinking spontaneous generation is a plausible idea.

No, not at all like life today. The earliest life existed when there was very little oxygen in the atmosphere. They were what is known as obligate anaerobes. In other words, oxygen was lethal to them. There are still many types of bacteria *today* for which this is true. If they are exposed to the air, they will die.

We know that the atmosphere at the time did not contain a lot of oxygen because of the nature of the iron deposits from that time. The iron is not oxygenated. Then, about 2 billion years ago, there was a change and a lot of the iron that was dissolved in the oceans precipitated because there was now enough oxygen to allow that to happen. The resulting deposits are called the red-band formations. Oh, and the oxygen? It was formed by living things as a by product of their chemical processes. One way we could detect life on planets orbiting other stars would be by the presence of free oxygen.

So, yes, life did exist before that and it existed in a world with very little free oxygen. That environment supported life, even though animal and plant life would not have been possible then (and, in fact, it didn't exist then).

<quoted text>Science has nothing to do with religion. Scientists are not out to prove whether your god or any other god exists or not. As scientists, they don't care.How many scientists are christian? Does it matter? No.How many scientists believe in a young Earth? Damn few! But does it matter? Not unless they are trying to bring that stupidity into real science! Or worse, into public classrooms.How many scientists believe in Adam and Eve? Damn few! But does it matter? Not unless they are trying to bring that stupidity into real science! Or worse, into public classrooms.If there was any credible evidence of Adam and Eve popping onto the planet, the first fully grown humans to ever exist, scientists would be all over that evidence trying to prove it wrong. Just like they do for every other bit of credible evidence.

<quoted text>Yes, and that is why we say science is STILL correcting itself.Thank you very much.

Unlike religion, which still wallows in the same mistakes as always. Science, by correcting its mistakes, learns about how the universe works and the same mistakes are not made a second time. So there is progress. It is never absolutely proven (no amount of observation can produce absolute proof of a general proposition), but the confidence can be quite high. And the error bars get smaller all the time.

"Lavoisier is listed among eminent Roman Catholic scientists (see List of Roman Catholic cleric-scientists), and as such he defended his faith against those who attempted to use science to attack it. Louis Edouard Grimaux, author of the standard French biography of Lavoisier, and the first biographer to obtain access to Lavoisier's papers, writes the following:

Raised in a pious family which had given many priests to the Church, he had held to his beliefs. To Edward King, an English author who had sent him a controversial work, he wrote, "You have done a noble thing in upholding revelation and the authenticity of the Holy Scripture, and it is remarkable that you are using for the defense precisely the same weapons which were once used for the attack.""

<quoted text>Unlike religion, which still wallows in the same mistakes as always. Science, by correcting its mistakes, learns about how the universe works and the same mistakes are not made a second time. So there is progress. It is never absolutely proven (no amount of observation can produce absolute proof of a general proposition), but the confidence can be quite high. And the error bars get smaller all the time.

<quoted text>Eyewitness accounts of human interaction with Him have been recorded and preserved for us in the Bible and are still recorded today.But does such documented testimony satisfy skeptics? It never has, and it never will.Even if God Himself appeared & performed miracles, you'd probably say He's an alien or something & make fun of theists for "twisting the truth".Some of the people who knew of Christ's miracles later shouted for His blood. That would've been you.

<quoted text>God created the Taliban so they could rape and kill little girls. God created paedophiles and...Oops, sorry. God created Free Will or something.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Y6bSTWtAo0UXX

As an atheist (or more correctly, a nullafidian), I would say I have no hope. Rather I attempt to base my views and expectations upon probability.I could hope for an afterlife in a never-never land.I could hope Zoe Deschanel would show up naked on my doorstep tonight.I could also hope to win $20 million in the lottery.And of course, for all of the above hopes, there is very little evidence to support such hopes. Hence, why I don't engage in them.

<quoted text>Science corrected itself all through history, even under the Church. It is a process, not a religion. But you are trying to turn it into a religion.

Well, modern science did get a good kickstart under the Church.

The Church filled the void left by the collapse of the Roman Empire. The void included libraries and the exchange of information. The Church brought what survived back. They provided the education and facilities.

You listen to too many soundbites.

One more time.

It was Faraday and Maxwell, two devout theists, that are the absolute underpinnings of modern science. They dealt with this invisible force and turned it into the tool used since by modern physics and science.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.